Should Church and State Be Separated??

[Divair2]

Which is great.

I'd be for it if the same legislation could be guaranteed to be restricted purely to interstate and national oversight. But it won't be. I simply fear that the legislation would, eventually, be used to affect individual lives. If that be the case, then are we saying that the Government has the right to directly interact with individuals? If that be the case, why even perpetuate the federal structure of government?

Why not go unitary?

I don't do the whole "state rights" thing. Unitary is fine by me.

[Pandeeria]

State rights suck.

How so? Because there exists, among the several states, both progressive and reactionary governments? Because there are people who don't hold to your ideals of a more egalitarian society?

I guess.

[Distruzio]

By Church and State do you mean churches and politics or church and government?

If politics then definitely so since it is just a bunch of whore mongering anyway. At-least the government tries get things done rather than mope about in STD infested waste.

And God knows the US Government has a large enough monopoly on departmental acronyms.

[Geilinor]

Which is great.

I'd be for it if the same legislation could be guaranteed to be restricted purely to interstate and national oversight. But it won't be. I simply fear that the legislation would, eventually, be used to affect individual lives. If that be the case, then are we saying that the Government has the right to directly interact with individuals? If that be the case, why even perpetuate the federal structure of government?

Why not go unitary?

Where does the Constitution say, "the federal government must not directly interact with individuals"? No federation has such a ridiculous restriction. Not even Switzerland. Arresting people for violating federal law involves interaction with individuals. Running for office involves interaction with individuals.

[Distruzio]

I'd be for it if the same legislation could be guaranteed to be restricted purely to interstate and national oversight. But it won't be. I simply fear that the legislation would, eventually, be used to affect individual lives. If that be the case, then are we saying that the Government has the right to directly interact with individuals? If that be the case, why even perpetuate the federal structure of government?

Why not go unitary?

I don't do the whole "state rights" thing. Unitary is fine by me.

Ah.... ew.

Aside from that.... why?

[Need a Name]

The title is already pretty self explanatory. Should America's government take out aspects of religion while making laws? Should it be a federal law that states must do the same?

Already done. Ever heard of the first amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution

[Sensorland]

No. America's government must be merged with a Buddhist theocracy full of kick-ass bald monks.

Wait. Actually, I was going to say yes, they should be separated, but this is genius. As long as I get to keep my own religion.

[Distruzio]

I'd be for it if the same legislation could be guaranteed to be restricted purely to interstate and national oversight. But it won't be. I simply fear that the legislation would, eventually, be used to affect individual lives. If that be the case, then are we saying that the Government has the right to directly interact with individuals? If that be the case, why even perpetuate the federal structure of government?

Why not go unitary?

Where does the Constitution say, "the federal government must not directly interact with individuals"? Arresting people for violating federal law involves interaction with individuals. Running for office involves interaction with individuals.

Where does the Constitution say that federal legislation may directly affect individuals.

If it doesn't say it can't and it doesn't say it can, which is the correct interpretation?

[Divair2]

I don't do the whole "state rights" thing. Unitary is fine by me.

Ah.... ew.

Aside from that.... why?

I don't see the need for another level of gov't that could potentially fuck up when their job can be done without a huge legal argument every few days about "state rights".

[Pandeeria]

Ah.... ew.

Aside from that.... why?

I don't see the need for another level of gov't that could potentially fuck up when their job can be done without a huge legal argument every few days about "state rights".

The complications that come with State rights out weigh the "benefit" of having State rights (if there even is a benefit.)

[Distruzio]

How so? Because there exists, among the several states, both progressive and reactionary governments? Because there are people who don't hold to your ideals of a more egalitarian society?

I guess.

That being the case (and, personally, I agree with certain egalitarian ideals albeit from a propertarian anti-egalitarian perspective) then why participate in the government as currently structured?

[Geilinor]

I don't do the whole "state rights" thing. Unitary is fine by me.

Ah.... ew.

Aside from that.... why?

Federal systems cause a great deal of conflict between the levels of government and lead to inconsistent law. Unitary systems tend to have uniform and consistent law and federal subdivisions can't go free to restrict rights. Most of the discriminatory law in the United States comes from the states.

[Distruzio]

Ah.... ew.

Aside from that.... why?

I don't see the need for another level of gov't that could potentially fuck up when their job can be done without a huge legal argument every few days about "state rights".

And what of the municipal, county, and city governments? What of the differing branches of national government? If you disagree with the necessity of more levels of government, then should I infer that you want the executive to be the extent of government existence?

[Divair2]

I don't see the need for another level of gov't that could potentially fuck up when their job can be done without a huge legal argument every few days about "state rights".

And what of the municipal, county, and city governments? What of the differing branches of national government? If you disagree with the necessity of more levels of government, then should I infer that you want the executive to be the extent of government existence?

I'm fine with municipal, county, and city govt's because there's never an argument about their rights. The national gov't overrides them if they do something stupid and nobody whines about it.

[Pandeeria]

I guess.

That being the case (and, personally, I agree with certain egalitarian ideals albeit from a propertarian anti-egalitarian perspective) then why participate in the government as currently structured?

So you can actually make a difference.

Hey, all I'm saying is I don't like State rights. It's just a unnecessary complication for a none-existent benefit.

[Zybex]

Yes their shouldn't be a bias for one religion and or group their should be a complete separation of the two, for religion has NO place in politics.

[Ostroeuropa]

But guys, some religions havn't done so well out of this laissez fairez equality approach.
We need to positively discriminate in their favor!

It's about equity, not equality. And christians have privilege that other religions don't, so the state should intervene to help those other religions. (But not christianity. That'd be discriminatory.)

We need to mandate that certain religions be elected to the senate and congress by quota, and force people with those religions into CEO positions, and rig education systems in their favor, etc.

Right?
That's the kind of shit we're doing now?

[Distruzio]

And what of the municipal, county, and city governments? What of the differing branches of national government? If you disagree with the necessity of more levels of government, then should I infer that you want the executive to be the extent of government existence?

I'm fine with municipal, county, and city govt's because there's never an argument about their rights. The national gov't overrides them if they do something stupid and nobody whines about it.

So... your objection to states rights is based upon whining? That is to say that you would be satisfied with a unitary form of government provided media didn't exaggerate the issues at hand?

[Pandeeria]

I'm fine with municipal, county, and city govt's because there's never an argument about their rights. The national gov't overrides them if they do something stupid and nobody whines about it.

So... your objection to states rights is based upon whining? That is to say that you would be satisfied with a unitary form of government provided media didn't exaggerate the issues at hand?

Guys, stop thread jacking.

Someone should make a new thread about State rights.

[Divair2]

I'm fine with municipal, county, and city govt's because there's never an argument about their rights. The national gov't overrides them if they do something stupid and nobody whines about it.

So... your objection to states rights is based upon whining? That is to say that you would be satisfied with a unitary form of government provided media didn't exaggerate the issues at hand?

Not particularly exaggeration of issues, but I'm fine because there's never a legal nor ideological argument against the national government from, say, a city. For example.. A city might decide to start teaching creationism, but the national gov't smacks them down. Nobody cries about it. No judges question it. But if it were a state instead of a city, suddenly you've got politicians, judges, and people campaigning and crying about state rights.

[Distruzio]

That being the case (and, personally, I agree with certain egalitarian ideals albeit from a propertarian anti-egalitarian perspective) then why participate in the government as currently structured?

So you can actually make a difference.

Would you say that a more uniform national government has resulted from this progressive participation?

Hey, all I'm saying is I don't like State rights. It's just a unnecessary complication for a none-existent benefit.

Fair enough.

[Geilinor]

I'm fine with municipal, county, and city govt's because there's never an argument about their rights. The national gov't overrides them if they do something stupid and nobody whines about it.

So... your objection to states rights is based upon whining? That is to say that you would be satisfied with a unitary form of government provided media didn't exaggerate the issues at hand?

Not Divair, but I'm fine with federal systems where the powers of the state governments are clearly listed out and defined, other than just "what this Constitution doesn't give to the federal government goes to the states or to the people".

[Distruzio]

So... your objection to states rights is based upon whining? That is to say that you would be satisfied with a unitary form of government provided media didn't exaggerate the issues at hand?

Guys, stop thread jacking.

Someone should make a new thread about State rights.

We aren't thread jacking. We're segueing. From one subject, we can infer the ramifications of another subject - explore it, and return to the original subject. We're talking about the supremacy of secular federal law over religious state law - albeit in a round about manner.

[Pandeeria]

So you can actually make a difference.

Would you say that a more uniform national government has resulted from this progressive participation?

What do you define as progressive participation? I'm kinda confused.

[Distruzio]

But guys, some religions havn't done so well out of this laissez fairez equality approach.
We need to positively discriminate in their favor!

It's about equity, not equality. And christians have privilege that other religions don't, so the state should intervene to help those other religions. (But not christianity. That'd be discriminatory.)

We need to mandate that certain religions be elected to the senate and congress by quota, and force people with those religions into CEO positions, and rig education systems in their favor, etc.

Right?
That's the kind of shit we're doing now?

That's what I'm seeing.